DETAILED ACTION
The office action is responsive to an application filed on 2/22/23 and is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-15 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: There appears to be a
grammatical error within the limitation that states “wherein the simulator is further programmed to compute compute a strain-displacement matrix based on a stiffness matrix and a displacement value”, where the word “compute” is mentioned twice. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim1-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims cover performance of the limitation in the mind or by pencil and paper and as a mathematical concept.
Claims 1 and 9
Regarding step 1, claims 1 and 12 is directed towards a method and a system, which has the claim fall within the eligible statutory categories of processes, machines, manufactures and composition of matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 1
Regarding step 2A, prong 1, claim 1 recites “generating an initial wellbore model that includes a formation model and main wellbore model”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 1 recites “updating the initial wellbore model to include a lateral wellbore model to provide an updated wellbore model”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Regarding step 2A, prong 2, the limitation of “simulating, by the one or more processors, the initial wellbore model to compute stress distributions in the formation model caused during main wellbore model formation” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the stress distributions are being computed based on the simulation of the initial wellbore model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and simulating, by the one or more processors, the updated wellbore model to compute updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during lateral wellbore model formation using the determined stress distributions” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the stress distributions are being computed based on the simulation of the updated wellbore model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim recites the additional element of a computer. The computer is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Regarding Step 2B, the limitation of “simulating, by the one or more processors, the initial wellbore model to compute stress distributions in the formation model caused during main wellbore model formation” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the stress distributions are being computed based on the simulation of the initial wellbore model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation of “and simulating, by the one or more processors, the updated wellbore model to compute updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during lateral wellbore model formation using the determined stress distributions” amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the stress distributions are being computed based on the simulation of the updated wellbore model. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Further, the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional element of the computer amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component that does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea and therefore cannot provide an inventive concept (See MPEP 2106.05(b).
Claim 2
Dependent claim 2 recites “outputting updated stress field data characterizing the updated stress disturbances in the formation model caused during the lateral wellbore model formation.”. This limitation amounts to insignificant extra-solution activity of receiving data i.e. pre-solution activity of gathering data for use in the claimed process, see MPEP 2106.05(g).
Claim 3
Dependent claim 3 recites “causing, by the one or more processors, to update operating parameters for forming one of the main or lateral wellbore based on the updated stress field data.”. This limitation amounts to mere instructions to apply an exception, where it recites an idea of a solution. The limitation doesn’t indicate how the operating parameters are being updated. See MPEP 2106.05 (f) (1) Whether the claim recites only the idea of a solution or outcome i.e., the claim fails to recite details of how a solution to a problem is accomplished. The recitation of claim limitations that attempt to cover any solution to an identified problem with no restriction on how the result is accomplished and no description of the mechanism for accomplishing the result, does not integrate a judicial exception into a practical application or provide significantly more because this type of recitation is equivalent to the words "apply it".
Also, the limitation recites the additional element of a processor. The processorr is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 4
Dependent claim 4 recites “computing, by the one or more processors drilling parameter data for updating operating parameters for forming one of the main or lateral wellbore based on the updated stress field data.”. This limitation is computing the drilling parameter data for updating the operating parameters. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Also, the limitation recites the additional element of a processor. The processorr is recited at a high level of generality such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a computer and/or a generic computer component. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea.
Claim 5
Dependent claim 5 recites “computing a strain-displacement matrix based on a stiffness matrix and a displacement value”. This limitation is computing a strain-displacement matrix based on a stiffness matrix and a displacement value. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Dependent claim 5 recites “and computing a stress tensor for a respective node of the initial wellbore model based on the strain-displacement matrix and a consistent tangent matrix.”. This limitation is computing a stress tensor for a respective node of the initial wellbore model. Therefore, under MPEP 2106.04(a)(2), this limitation covers a mathematical concept, which falls in the “Mathematical Concept” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 6
Dependent claim 6 recites “wherein the stress distributions in the formation model include principal stress values for the respective node of the initial wellbore model.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 7
Dependent claim 7 recites “evaluating the updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during the lateral wellbore model formation based on failure criteria to determine whether one or more nodes of the formation model experienced a deformation failure.”. This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claim 8
Dependent claim 8 recites “wherein the failure criteria includes one of a Mohr-Coulomb criterion, a Mogi criterion, a Drucker-Prager criterion, and a Lade criterion.” This limitation doesn’t distinguish itself from being able to be conducted in the human mind or with pencil and paper. Therefore, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this limitation is a process step that covers performance in the human mind or with the aid of pencil and paper. As such, this limitation falls within the “Mental Process” grouping of abstract ideas.
Claims 1-8 are therefore not drawn to eligible subject matter as they are directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 9-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claim is directed to non- statutory subject matter.
Claim 9 is directed towards software, which is not a process, machine, manufacture of composition of matter, see paragraph [0019] of the specification. The stress field assessment engine, the pre-processing component, the simulator, the model updating component fall under non-statutory subject matter,
Claim 10
Dependent claim 10 is directed towards software, where it contains the stress field assessment engine, which falls under non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11
Dependent claim 11 is directed towards the stress field assessment engine, which falls under non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 12
Dependent claim 12 is directed towards the s stress field assessment engine, which falls under non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 13
Dependent claim 13 is directed towards the simulator, which falls under non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 14
Dependent claim 14 is directed towards the simulator, which falls under non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15
Dependent claim 15 is directed towards the simulator, which falls under non-statutory subject matter.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness
rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35
U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-4, 7 and 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sadlier et al. (U.S. PGPub 2011/0153296) (from IDS dated 2/22/23) in view of Berard et al. (U.S. PGPub 2017/0205531).
With respect to claim 1, Sadlier et al. discloses “A computer implemented method” as
[Sadlier et al. (paragraph [0008] “In one aspect, a method of conducting a drilling operation is provided.”)];
“generating, by one or more processors, an initial wellbore model that includes a
formation model and main wellbore model” as [Sadlier et al. (paragraph [0030] “A
Geomechanical Model is an earth model that specifies the earth's stress orientations and magnitudes, the pore pressure, and the rock strength for an area of consideration.”, Sadlier et al. (paragraph [0049] “A geosteered drilling operation is thereafter commenced, with the trajectory being steered in a direction relative to the stress model of the region. While drilling, real-time data is obtained from conventional down-hole instrumentation. The real-time data is used to refine the stress model for the region, such that the trajectory can be guided on an ongoing basis to achieve an optimal relationship with the estimated directions of principal stresses”)];
“simulating, by the one or more processors, the initial wellbore model to compute stress distributions in the formation model caused during main wellbore model formation” as [Sadlier et al. (paragraph [0049] “A geosteered drilling operation is thereafter commenced, with the trajectory being steered in a direction relative to the stress model of the region. While drilling, real-time data is obtained from conventional down-hole instrumentation. The real-time data is used to refine the stress model for the region, such that the trajectory can be guided on an ongoing basis to achieve an optimal relationship with the estimated directions of principal stresses”)];
While the Sadlier et al. reference teaches generating an initial wellbore model that includes a formation model and main wellbore model and simulating the initial wellbore model to compute stress distributions in the formation model caused during main wellbore model formation, Sadlier et al. does not explicitly disclose “updating, by the one or more processors, the initial wellbore model to include a lateral wellbore model to provide an updated wellbore model; and simulating, by the one or more processors, the updated wellbore model to compute updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during lateral wellbore model formation using the determined stress distributions.”
Berard et al. discloses “updating, by the one or more processors, the initial wellbore model to include a lateral wellbore model to provide an updated wellbore model” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0094] “As an example, a well may be drilled for a reservoir that is laterally extensive. In such an example, lateral variations in properties, stresses, etc. may exist where an assessment of such variations may assist with planning, operations, etc. to develop a laterally extensive reservoir (e.g., via drilling and completing a well, fracturing, injecting, extracting, monitoring, etc.)”, Berard et al. paragraph [0173] “As an example, a model may be built and/or refined that includes a resolution laterally that is of the order of about one hundred meters (e.g., about 300 feet). As an example, a model may be built and/or refined that includes resolution in lateral directions (e.g., consider x and y directions in a Cartesian coordinate system) of the order of about one hundred meters.”, The examiner considers the refining of the model to be the updating of the initial wellbore model, since the refining of the model includes resolution in the lateral direction)];
“and simulating, by the one or more processors, the updated wellbore model to compute updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during lateral wellbore model formation using the determined stress distributions.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0187] “As an example, the geomechanics portion 550 can, to at least in part generate a multidimensional MEM per the 3D MEM block 556, include populating a model (e.g., grid cells, grid nodes, surfaces, etc.) with one or more types of properties, values, etc. (e.g., consider mechanical properties and pore fluid pressures). For example, consider the density and sonic log processing block 560, the other information block 562, the rock properties block 564 and the faults and fractures properties block 568, which can provide information to the static 3D MEM block 556. As an example, boundary conditions per a boundary conditions block 570 can be applied to a multidimensional MEM of the 3D MEM block 556, which may include information pertaining to pore pressures per a pore pressures block 574 and/or information as to stress per a stress data block 584. In the geomechanics portion 550, a computation block 558 may compute stress for a multidimensional MEM,”, Fig. 5)];
Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. are analogous art because they are from the same
field endeavor of analyzing the drilling of a wellbore.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sadlier et al. of generating an initial wellbore model that includes a formation model and main wellbore model and simulating the initial wellbore model to compute stress distributions in the formation model caused during main wellbore model formation by incorporating updating, by the one or more processors, the initial wellbore model to include a lateral wellbore model to provide an updated wellbore model; and simulating, by the one or more processors, the updated wellbore model to compute updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during lateral wellbore model formation using the determined stress distributions as taught by Berard et al. for the purpose of determining a stress field.
Sadlier et al. in view of Berard et al. teaches updating, by the one or more processors, the initial wellbore model to include a lateral wellbore model to provide an updated wellbore model; and simulating, by the one or more processors, the updated wellbore model to compute updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during lateral wellbore model formation using the determined stress distributions.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Berard et al. teaches that by determining a stress field, the ability to perform a stimulation treatment of a wellbore can be accomplished. This allows a way to restore or enhance the productivity of the well (Berard et al. (paragraph [0147] “Hydraulic fracturing may be considered a stimulation treatment that may aim to enhance recovery of one or more resources from a reservoir or reservoirs.”).
With respect to claim 2, the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. discloses the method of claim 1 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “outputting updated stress field data characterizing the updated stress disturbances in the formation model caused during the lateral wellbore model formation.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0187] “In the geomechanics portion 550, a computation block 558 may compute stress for a multidimensional MEM, for example, via a process that includes solving a system of equations subject to boundary conditions, etc. The computation block 558 may output a stress field as a solution (e.g., over a region, regions, etc.) per a 3D stress field block 580.”, Fig. 5)];
With respect to claim 3, the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. discloses the method of claim 2 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “causing, by the one or more processors, to update operating parameters for forming one of the main or lateral wellbore based on the updated stress field data.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0094] “As an example, a well may be drilled for a reservoir that is laterally extensive. In such an example, lateral variations in properties, stresses, etc. may exist where an assessment of such variations may assist with planning, operations, etc. to develop a laterally extensive reservoir (e.g., via drilling and completing a well, fracturing, injecting, extracting, monitoring, etc.)”, Berard et al. paragraph [0173] “As an example, a model may be built and/or refined that includes a resolution laterally that is of the order of about one hundred meters (e.g., about 300 feet). As an example, a model may be built and/or refined that includes resolution in lateral directions (e.g., consider x and y directions in a Cartesian coordinate system) of the order of about one hundred meters.”)];
With respect to claim 4, the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. discloses the method of claim 2 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “computing, by the one or more processors drilling parameter data for updating operating parameters for forming one of the main or lateral wellbore based on the updated stress field data.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0076] “As an example, a workflow may be performed during a drilling operation, a completion operation, a fracturing operation, etc. For example, consider a workflow that includes one or more simulations that can output information germane to a geologic environment being drilled, a bore being completed, a formation being fractured, etc. In such an example, the output information may pertain to one or more feature locations, one or more physical phenomena, etc. As an example, information output by a workflow may be used to adjust one or more field operations such as, for example, one or more drilling operations, one or more completion operations, one or more fracturing operations, etc.”)];
With respect to claim 7, the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. discloses the method of claim 2 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “evaluating the updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during the lateral wellbore model formation based on failure criteria to determine whether one or more nodes of the formation model experienced a deformation failure.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0230] “As an example, the data 720 may include information that is germane to stress in a geologic environment. For example, particular features may indicate that a particular type of geological environment stress exists (e.g., drilling induced fractures, compression failures, tensile failures, induced fractures, breakout failures, etc.). As an example, analysis of such information may assist with stress field calculations, which may be used in a stimulation treatment (e.g., planning, delivery, etc.).”)];
With respect to claim 9, Sadlier et al. discloses “A system” as [Sadlier et al. (paragraph [0020] “FIG. 1 is a schematic diagram of an exemplary drilling system 100 that includes a drill string having a drilling assembly attached to its bottom end that includes a steering unit according to one embodiment of the disclosure..”, Fig. 1)];
“memory to store machine-readable instructions” as [Sadlier et al. (paragraph [0073] “Also, described above is a computer-readable medium product having stored thereon instructions that when read by at least one processor enable the at least one processor to perform a method.”)];
“and one or more processors to access the memory and execute the machine-readable instructions” as [Sadlier et al. (paragraph [0073] “Also, described above is a computer-readable medium product having stored thereon instructions that when read by at least one processor enable the at least one processor to perform a method.”)];
“the machine-readable instructions comprising a stress field assessment engine comprising: a pre-processing component programmed to generate an initial wellbore model that includes a formation model and main wellbore model” as [Sadlier et al. (paragraph [0030] “A Geomechanical Model is an earth model that specifies the earth's stress orientations and magnitudes, the pore pressure, and the rock strength for an area of consideration.”, Sadlier et al. (paragraph [0049] “A geosteered drilling operation is thereafter commenced, with the trajectory being steered in a direction relative to the stress model of the region. While drilling, real-time data is obtained from conventional down-hole instrumentation. The real-time data is used to refine the stress model for the region, such that the trajectory can be guided on an ongoing basis to achieve an optimal relationship with the estimated directions of principal stresses”)];
“a simulator programmed to simulate the initial wellbore model to compute stress distributions in the formation model caused during main wellbore model formation” as [Sadlier et al. (paragraph [0049] “A geosteered drilling operation is thereafter commenced, with the trajectory being steered in a direction relative to the stress model of the region. While drilling, real-time data is obtained from conventional down-hole instrumentation. The real-time data is used to refine the stress model for the region, such that the trajectory can be guided on an ongoing basis to achieve an optimal relationship with the estimated directions of principal stresses”)];
While the Sadlier et al. reference teaches generating an initial wellbore model that includes a formation model and main wellbore model and simulating the initial wellbore model to compute stress distributions in the formation model caused during main wellbore model formation, Sadlier et al. does not explicitly disclose “and a model updating component programmed to update the initial wellbore model to include a lateral wellbore model to provide an updated wellbore model; wherein the simulator is further programmed to simulate the updated wellbore model to determine updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during lateral wellbore model formation using the determined stress distributions”
Berard et al. discloses “and a model updating component programmed to update the initial wellbore model to include a lateral wellbore model to provide an updated wellbore model” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0094] “As an example, a well may be drilled for a reservoir that is laterally extensive. In such an example, lateral variations in properties, stresses, etc. may exist where an assessment of such variations may assist with planning, operations, etc. to develop a laterally extensive reservoir (e.g., via drilling and completing a well, fracturing, injecting, extracting, monitoring, etc.)”, Berard et al. paragraph [0173] “As an example, a model may be built and/or refined that includes a resolution laterally that is of the order of about one hundred meters (e.g., about 300 feet). As an example, a model may be built and/or refined that includes resolution in lateral directions (e.g., consider x and y directions in a Cartesian coordinate system) of the order of about one hundred meters.”, The examiner considers the refining of the model to be the updating of the initial wellbore model, since the refining of the model includes resolution in the lateral direction)];
“wherein the simulator is further programmed to simulate the updated wellbore model to determine updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during lateral wellbore model formation using the determined stress distributions.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0187] “As an example, the geomechanics portion 550 can, to at least in part generate a multidimensional MEM per the 3D MEM block 556, include populating a model (e.g., grid cells, grid nodes, surfaces, etc.) with one or more types of properties, values, etc. (e.g., consider mechanical properties and pore fluid pressures). For example, consider the density and sonic log processing block 560, the other information block 562, the rock properties block 564 and the faults and fractures properties block 568, which can provide information to the static 3D MEM block 556. As an example, boundary conditions per a boundary conditions block 570 can be applied to a multidimensional MEM of the 3D MEM block 556, which may include information pertaining to pore pressures per a pore pressures block 574 and/or information as to stress per a stress data block 584. In the geomechanics portion 550, a computation block 558 may compute stress for a multidimensional MEM,”, Fig. 5)];
Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. are analogous art because they are from the same
field endeavor of analyzing the drilling of a wellbore.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sadlier et al. of generating an initial wellbore model that includes a formation model and main wellbore model and simulating the initial wellbore model to compute stress distributions in the formation model caused during main wellbore model formation by incorporating and a model updating component programmed to update the initial wellbore model to include a lateral wellbore model to provide an updated wellbore model; wherein the simulator is further programmed to simulate the updated wellbore model to determine updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during lateral wellbore model formation using the determined stress distributions as taught by Berard et al. for the purpose of determining a stress field.
Sadlier et al. in view of Berard et al. teaches and a model updating component programmed to update the initial wellbore model to include a lateral wellbore model to provide an updated wellbore model; wherein the simulator is further programmed to simulate the updated wellbore model to determine updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during lateral wellbore model formation using the determined stress distributions.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Berard et al. teaches that by determining a stress field, the ability to perform a stimulation treatment of a wellbore can be accomplished. This allows a way to restore or enhance the productivity of the well (Berard et al. (paragraph [0147] “Hydraulic fracturing may be considered a stimulation treatment that may aim to enhance recovery of one or more resources from a reservoir or reservoirs.”).
With respect to claim 10, the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. discloses the system of claim 9 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “wherein the stress field assessment engine is programmed to output updated stress field data characterizing the updated stress disturbances in the formation model caused during the lateral wellbore model formation.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0187] “In the geomechanics portion 550, a computation block 558 may compute stress for a multidimensional MEM, for example, via a process that includes solving a system of equations subject to boundary conditions, etc. The computation block 558 may output a stress field as a solution (e.g., over a region, regions, etc.) per a 3D stress field block 580.”, Fig. 5)];
With respect to claim 11, the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. discloses the system of claim 10 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “wherein the stress field assessment engine is further programmed to cause operating parameters for forming one of the main or lateral wellbore to be updated based on the updated stress field data.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0094] “As an example, a well may be drilled for a reservoir that is laterally extensive. In such an example, lateral variations in properties, stresses, etc. may exist where an assessment of such variations may assist with planning, operations, etc. to develop a laterally extensive reservoir (e.g., via drilling and completing a well, fracturing, injecting, extracting, monitoring, etc.)”, Berard et al. paragraph [0173] “As an example, a model may be built and/or refined that includes a resolution laterally that is of the order of about one hundred meters (e.g., about 300 feet). As an example, a model may be built and/or refined that includes resolution in lateral directions (e.g., consider x and y directions in a Cartesian coordinate system) of the order of about one hundred meters.”)];
With respect to claim 12, the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. discloses the system of claim 10 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “wherein the stress field assessment engine is further programmed to compute drilling parameter data for updating operating parameters for forming one of the main or lateral wellbore based on the updated stress field data.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0076] “As an example, a workflow may be performed during a drilling operation, a completion operation, a fracturing operation, etc. For example, consider a workflow that includes one or more simulations that can output information germane to a geologic environment being drilled, a bore being completed, a formation being fractured, etc. In such an example, the output information may pertain to one or more feature locations, one or more physical phenomena, etc. As an example, information output by a workflow may be used to adjust one or more field operations such as, for example, one or more drilling operations, one or more completion operations, one or more fracturing operations, etc.”)];
Claim(s) 5-6 and 13-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Sadlier et al. in view of Berard et al. in further view of Shahri et al. (U.S. PGPub 2015/0292323).
With respect to claim 5, the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. discloses the method of claim 4 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “wherein simulating, by the one or more processors, the initial wellbore model to determine the stress distributions in the formation model caused during main wellbore model formation comprises: computing a strain-displacement matrix based on a stiffness matrix and a displacement value” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0192] “As an example, boundary conditions may include one or more displacement and/or stress boundary conditions (e.g., applied to one or more lateral faces, etc.) and one or more internal boundary conditions (e.g., consider body forces). As an example, tuning may be applied to adjust one or more boundary conditions, for example, based at least in part on diminishing a difference between modeled and measured stresses.”, Berard et al. paragraph [0249] “As an example, a system may provide for one or more of modeling 3D loading conditions representing a tectonic regime (e.g., normal, thrust, or strike-slip fault), gravity field, and effective stress; computing fault mechanical interaction in response to the applied tectonic loading (e.g., as opposed to standard elastic dislocation methods); computing displacement, strain and stress fields, and associated attributes in a surrounding volume (e.g., on the Earth's surface, on seismic horizons, along well paths, at reservoir grid nodes, at cross sections, or at volumes)”)];
While the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. teaches computing a strain-displacement matrix, Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. do not explicitly disclose “and computing a stress tensor for a respective node of the initial wellbore model based on the strain-displacement matrix and a consistent tangent matrix.”
Shahri et al. discloses “and computing a stress tensor for a respective node of the initial wellbore model based on the strain-displacement matrix and a consistent tangent matrix.” as [Shahri et al. (paragraph [0029] “In one embodiment, the integrated tool may include steps for one or more of the following: 1) generating a geomechanical model for the wellbore based on input data from different sources such as well-logs, leak-off tests, mini-fracture tests, and the like; 2) determining the complete stress tensor around the wellbore based on a transient thermo-poro-elastic model which may include internal/external mud cake effects”, The examiner considers the mud cake effects to be the consistent tangent, since the mud cake effect is the damage to the formation of the wellbore and the consistent tangent is the rock formation of the wellbore, see paragraph [0024] of the specification)];
Sadlier et al., Berard et al. and Shahri et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the drilling of a wellbore.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. of computing a strain-displacement matrix by incorporating and computing a stress tensor for a respective node of the initial wellbore model based on the strain-displacement matrix and a consistent tangent matrix as taught by Shahri et al. for the purpose of strengthening a given wellbore and determining what mud weight or lost circulation material would be most effective.
Sadlier et al. in view of Berard et al. in further view of Shahri et al. teaches and computing a stress tensor for a respective node of the initial wellbore model based on the strain-displacement matrix and a consistent tangent matrix.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Shahri et al. teaches that by evaluating the stress and stability of a wellbore and determining what mud weight or lost circulation material would be most effective, the ability to strengthen a wellbore can be accomplished. This allows to have the wellbore be more productive (Shahri et al. (paragraph [0007] – [0008]).
With respect to claim 6, the combination of Sadlier et al., Berard et al. and Shahri et al. discloses the method of claim 5 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “wherein the stress distributions in the formation model include principal stress values for the respective node of the initial wellbore model.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0187] “As an example, the geomechanics portion 550 can, to at least in part generate a multidimensional MEM per the 3D MEM block 556, include populating a model (e.g., grid cells, grid nodes, surfaces, etc.) with one or more types of properties, values, etc. (e.g., consider mechanical properties and pore fluid pressures). For example, consider the density and sonic log processing block 560, the other information block 562, the rock properties block 564 and the faults and fractures properties block 568, which can provide information to the static 3D MEM block 556. As an example, boundary conditions per a boundary conditions block 570 can be applied to a multidimensional MEM of the 3D MEM block 556, which may include information pertaining to pore pressures per a pore pressures block 574 and/or information as to stress per a stress data block 584. In the geomechanics portion 550, a computation block 558 may compute stress for a multidimensional MEM,”, Fig. 5)];
With respect to claim 13, the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. discloses the system of claim 10 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “wherein the simulator is further programmed to compute compute a strain-displacement matrix based on a stiffness matrix and a displacement value” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0192] “As an example, boundary conditions may include one or more displacement and/or stress boundary conditions (e.g., applied to one or more lateral faces, etc.) and one or more internal boundary conditions (e.g., consider body forces). As an example, tuning may be applied to adjust one or more boundary conditions, for example, based at least in part on diminishing a difference between modeled and measured stresses.”, Berard et al. paragraph [0249] “As an example, a system may provide for one or more of modeling 3D loading conditions representing a tectonic regime (e.g., normal, thrust, or strike-slip fault), gravity field, and effective stress; computing fault mechanical interaction in response to the applied tectonic loading (e.g., as opposed to standard elastic dislocation methods); computing displacement, strain and stress fields, and associated attributes in a surrounding volume (e.g., on the Earth's surface, on seismic horizons, along well paths, at reservoir grid nodes, at cross sections, or at volumes)”)];
While the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. teaches computing a strain-displacement matrix, Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. do not explicitly disclose “and compute a stress tensor for a respective node of the initial wellbore model based on the strain-displacement matrix and a consistent tangent matrix.”
Shahri et al. discloses “and compute a stress tensor for a respective node of the initial wellbore model based on the strain-displacement matrix and a consistent tangent matrix.” as [Shahri et al. (paragraph [0029] “In one embodiment, the integrated tool may include steps for one or more of the following: 1) generating a geomechanical model for the wellbore based on input data from different sources such as well-logs, leak-off tests, mini-fracture tests, and the like; 2) determining the complete stress tensor around the wellbore based on a transient thermo-poro-elastic model which may include internal/external mud cake effects”, The examiner considers the mud cake effects to be the consistent tangent, since the mud cake effect is the damage to the formation of the wellbore and the consistent tangent is the rock formation of the wellbore, see paragraph [0024] of the specification)];
Sadlier et al., Berard et al. and Shahri et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the drilling of a wellbore.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. of computing a strain-displacement matrix by incorporating and compute a stress tensor for a respective node of the initial wellbore model based on the strain-displacement matrix and a consistent tangent matrix as taught by Shahri et al. for the purpose of strengthening a given wellbore and determining what mud weight or lost circulation material would be most effective.
Sadlier et al. in view of Berard et al. in further view of Shahri et al. teaches and compute a stress tensor for a respective node of the initial wellbore model based on the strain-displacement matrix and a consistent tangent matrix.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Shahri et al. teaches that by evaluating the stress and stability of a wellbore and determining what mud weight or lost circulation material would be most effective, the ability to strengthen a wellbore can be accomplished. This allows to have the wellbore be more productive (Shahri et al. (paragraph [0007] – [0008]).
With respect to claim 14, the combination of Sadlier et al., Berard et al. and Shahri et al. discloses the system of claim 13 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “wherein the stress distributions in the formation model include principal stress values for the respective node of the initial wellbore model.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0187] “As an example, the geomechanics portion 550 can, to at least in part generate a multidimensional MEM per the 3D MEM block 556, include populating a model (e.g., grid cells, grid nodes, surfaces, etc.) with one or more types of properties, values, etc. (e.g., consider mechanical properties and pore fluid pressures). For example, consider the density and sonic log processing block 560, the other information block 562, the rock properties block 564 and the faults and fractures properties block 568, which can provide information to the static 3D MEM block 556. As an example, boundary conditions per a boundary conditions block 570 can be applied to a multidimensional MEM of the 3D MEM block 556, which may include information pertaining to pore pressures per a pore pressures block 574 and/or information as to stress per a stress data block 584. In the geomechanics portion 550, a computation block 558 may compute stress for a multidimensional MEM,”, Fig. 5)];
With respect to claim 15, the combination of Sadlier et al., Berard et al. and Shahri et al. discloses the system of claim 13 above, and Berard et al. further discloses “wherein the simulator is further programmed to evaluate the updated stress distributions in the formation model caused during the lateral wellbore model formation based on failure criteria to determine whether one or more nodes of the formation model experienced a deformation failure.” as [Berard et al. (paragraph [0230] “As an example, the data 720 may include information that is germane to stress in a geologic environment. For example, particular features may indicate that a particular type of geological environment stress exists (e.g., drilling induced fractures, compression failures, tensile failures, induced fractures, breakout failures, etc.). As an example, analysis of such information may assist with stress field calculations, which may be used in a stimulation treatment (e.g., planning, delivery, etc.).”)];
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sadlier et
al. in view of Berard et al. in further view of Hsu et al. (U.S. PGPub 2010/0191511).
With respect to claim 8, the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. discloses the method of claim 4 above.
While the combination of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. teaches having failure mechanisms for one or more mud composition thresholds, Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. do not explicitly disclose “wherein the failure criteria includes one of a Mohr-Coulomb criterion, a Mogi criterion, a Drucker-Prager criterion, and a Lade criterion.”
Hsu et al. discloses “wherein the failure criteria includes one of a Mohr-Coulomb criterion, a Mogi criterion, a Drucker-Prager criterion, and a Lade criterion.” as [Hsu et al. (paragraph 0129] “The thickness of the formation may change in response to stress, strain, temperature, or other factors. Geomaterials also exhibit pressure-dependence. Therefore, built into the framework of the mathematical Mohr-Coulomb/Drucker Prager failure criteria is the failure behavior of the rock in response to changes in pressure.”, Hsu et al. paragraph [0130] “The response of a rock matrix may be calibrated with laboratory tests to determine response for plastic behavior or nonlinear elastic behavior. The failure mode may be analyzed mathematically using geomechanical properties, such as the Mohr-Coulomb failure criteria.”)];
Sadlier et al., Berard et al. and Hsu et al. are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor of analyzing the drilling of a wellbore.
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of Sadlier et al. and Berard et al. of having failure mechanisms for one or more mud composition thresholds by incorporating wherein the failure criteria includes one of a Mohr-Coulomb criterion, a Mogi criterion, a Drucker-Prager criterion, and a Lade criterion as taught by Hsu et al. for the purpose of predicting earth stresses in response to changes in a hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir within a geomechanical system.
Sadlier et al. in view of Berard et al. in further view of Hsu et al. teaches wherein the failure criteria includes one of a Mohr-Coulomb criterion, a Mogi criterion, a Drucker-Prager criterion, and a Lade criterion.
The motivation for doing so would have been because Hsu et al. teaches that by predicting earth stresses in response to changes in a hydrocarbon-bearing reservoir within a geomechanical system, the ability to correct nonconformities in the earth layers can be accomplished. This allows for the accounting of pinchouts and erosive zones (Hsu et al. paragraph [0013] – [0014]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The relevance of Vanderheyden et al. (U.S. PGPub 2013/0096890) is a computer system and method of simulating the behavior of an oil and gas reservoir including changes in the margins of frangible solids.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARD E COTHRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5594. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM -5:30PM EST M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ryan F Pitaro can be reached at (571)272-4071. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERNARD E COTHRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2188
/RYAN F PITARO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2188
Prosecution Insights